IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 2nd October 2022, 06:58 PM   #2761
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
He doesn't state the amount he claims to have given. This article shows he's mostly all claim and no money and he's given the most money from his charity to.....himself. To the point his charity was dissolved by court order:


I still question that he ever actually sent any money.
Since Amanda Knox stated that he donated, I presume Trump did make some contribution of funds. There's no public record of how much, as far as I know. It could have been $10 or $100.

Trump's statement about it, as typical, may be highly exaggerated:

Quote:
"I helped the family out — I felt very, very badly for that family and for her — I never thought she did it," Trump told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.
Regarding the WaPo article, Trump's charity fund may not have been the source of any donation he made (assuming a donation was made), because under US tax law, as I understand it, a gift to an individual or single family from another individual is not a tax-deductible contribution but is not taxable to the recipient. The donor may have a tax liability if the gift exceeds a limit set by law. So a contribution from the charity fund to Knox or her family may have been legally inappropriate (possibly a violation of the fund's legal status) while one from Trump's personal funds may have been legally appropriate.

Source of the quote:

https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Trum.../04/id/413148/

Info on gift taxes:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small...-on-gift-taxes

Info on tax rules for charitable organizations:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-and-nonprofits

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd October 2022 at 08:14 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 07:18 PM   #2762
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. The fact of the matter is Guede was found guilty of being an accessory (=felony murder). His judgment clearly states that it was another person that killed the victim.

I know that is not what you want to hear or believe but simply rolling out semantics doesn't change the facts.
The fact is that Italian courts misapplied Italian law in interpreting evidence and failed to lawfully limit their jurisdictional scope in reaching the judgment that Guede was an accessory rather than the sole murderer/rapist of Kercher.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 11:13 PM   #2763
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Since Amanda Knox stated that he donated, I presume Trump did make some contribution of funds. There's no public record of how much, as far as I know. It could have been $10 or $100.

Trump's statement about it, as typical, may be highly exaggerated:



Regarding the WaPo article, Trump's charity fund may not have been the source of any donation he made (assuming a donation was made), because under US tax law, as I understand it, a gift to an individual or single family from another individual is not a tax-deductible contribution but is not taxable to the recipient. The donor may have a tax liability if the gift exceeds a limit set by law. So a contribution from the charity fund to Knox or her family may have been legally inappropriate (possibly a violation of the fund's legal status) while one from Trump's personal funds may have been legally appropriate.

Source of the quote:

https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Trum.../04/id/413148/

Info on gift taxes:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small...-on-gift-taxes

Info on tax rules for charitable organizations:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-and-nonprofits
Yes, I know that. My question was if a record was kept of all donations to Knox's defense fund. If not, then all we have, and Knox had, is his word he did. And Trump's word isn't worth anything. The reason I mentioned his 'charity' is to show that his claiming that he made a donation isn't credible evidence of it.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 11:29 PM   #2764
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The fact is that Italian courts misapplied Italian law in interpreting evidence and failed to lawfully limit their jurisdictional scope in reaching the judgment that Guede was an accessory rather than the sole murderer/rapist of Kercher.
On what evidence at the time of Guede's trial and then SC confirmation did they base that decision? They based it on Stefanoni's claim that Kercher's DNA was on the kitchen knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle. The fact that the alleged DNA of Meredith's on the knife was later judged unreliable and dismissed as evidence makes that ruling based on nothing.

Vixen loves her 'judicial facts' and since it's a judicial fact that AK and RS didn't kill MK either, she either needs to stop claiming they did or admit that 'judicial facts' are not necessarily 'truth'.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:45 AM   #2765
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The judicial facts were indeed unfortunate in this case since they implicated 2 innocent people and made the case irreconcilable, AFAICS.

Hoots
...in your opinion.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:47 AM   #2766
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Vixen still can't understand the simple fact that you don't need to express remorse for a crime you haven't committed.
So zero remorse for getting Lumumba falsely imprisoned for 'rape and murder' and zero remorse for being at the crime scene and not bothering to fetch any help whatsoever for a dying woman.


Got it. Sociopaths.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:49 AM   #2767
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The ECHR judgement referenced the Boninsegna motivation indicating the "psychological pressure" that prevailed during the proceedings. This had everything to do with the calunnia since it implies that Lumumba was implicated in an atmosphere of "oppression and stress". Boninsegna also states that:

"In fact the witness confirmed that the phrase on record, see you later, should be understood as an invitation to a totally generic future meeting, equivalent to a presto [see you soon] or something similar, rather than to an imminent and certain invitation."

If Amanda had willingly implicated Lumumba via the text message, she risked being slapped down by Donnino, who with 22 years of experience would have known exactly what the text message meant. Donnino also had the opportunity to advise her colleagues that the text message wasn't incriminating but didn't do so. Instead Donnino joined the cop consensus that Lumumba was their man with Amanda eventually capitulating through sheer exhaustion.

Hoots
If it relates to Boninsegna it cannot relate to the case under which Knox was convicted. As Knox never appealed the Boninsegna case that ruled in her favour, I am not sure why Boninsegna is the case being appealed at the ECHR.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:52 AM   #2768
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
OH, do stop embarrassing yourself with this drivel, Vix. Accusing people of racism seems to be your new 'go-to' tactic now. That's at least 3 people you've accused of that.
Citation please where I did anything of the sort.

You are the one who keeps using the phrase 'playing the race card' which is a phrase popular with racists, so why use a racist term if you don't want anyone to challenge it?
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:54 AM   #2769
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
From his history. I quoted his statement from Leosini's interview. Do you believe that anyone said "Black man found, black man convicted" to Guede? If so, then you have to believe Guede is totally innocent and his story is the truth. If not, then you must admit he made it up. And if so, that is playing the race card.




Nice attempt at whataboutism, there! But I'll answer it anyway: because one has nothing to do with the other. It's just another one of your attempted red herrings.
Nice touch with the claim that his father " rang him up a dozen times a day as he did not trust him" which you pulled straight out of your backside.



I've seen this claimed before but never with any citation. Do you have one? As the saying goes: put up or shut up.



Why the lies, Vixen?
It is well known. It is even in Sollecito's book. Please familiarise yourself with the case.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:55 AM   #2770
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Some people graduate from the Law School of Pulled It Out of My Ass.
Ah, so that's where you went?
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:56 AM   #2771
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
If it is judicial facts we're after, then it is a judicial fact that all that the so called 'blood evidence' proved.....

..... was that AK and RS were in the cottage after the murder and in another part of the house.....

Which no one denies. In my mind that judicial fact is tantalizingly close to the official, judicial position being....

They didn't do it, nor could they have. But that's just me.
Nowhere does the Supreme Court say that.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 02:00 AM   #2772
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Erm, that has ZERO to do with the topic or what I said above. Once again, you attempt to evade responding with a red herring. Your tactic became so predictable and obvious long ago. It fools no one.




Yeah, yeah, yeah....the same old song and dance and lies we've heard so many times before. Trouble is, Vix, Knox wasn't convicted of "obstruction" or anything close to it. She was convicted of calunnia and the closest thing to that in US law is defamation. On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. On the state level, Knox's state of Washington also has no criminal defamation law; defamation is considered a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I've presented citations for that many times. You just choose to ignore it. One the other hand, you've not once presented a shred of evidence that Knox's calunnia conviction is "the equivalent of obstruction of justice".

Stop trying to play with the adults and go back to the TJMK sandbox.
You have been told time and time again that Calunnia Criminal Law has nothing to do with Defamation Civil Law.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 02:01 AM   #2773
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
He doesn't state the amount he claims to have given. This article shows he's mostly all claim and no money and he's given the most money from his charity to.....himself. To the point his charity was dissolved by court order:




I still question that he ever actually sent any money.
Wow. Trump the hero after all.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 02:08 AM   #2774
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
On what evidence at the time of Guede's trial and then SC confirmation did they base that decision? They based it on Stefanoni's claim that Kercher's DNA was on the kitchen knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle. The fact that the alleged DNA of Meredith's on the knife was later judged unreliable and dismissed as evidence makes that ruling based on nothing.

Vixen loves her 'judicial facts' and since it's a judicial fact that AK and RS didn't kill MK either, she either needs to stop claiming they did or admit that 'judicial facts' are not necessarily 'truth'.
Read the motivations report if you want to find out On what evidence at the time of Guede's trial and then SC confirmation did they base that decision? It is all in the Public Records.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 05:46 AM   #2775
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,739
I don't actually know why we're bothering to engage with any of this claptrap. It's as pointless as trying to engage with people who continue to convince themselves that 9/11 was a US Government plot, or people who continue to convince themselves that homeopathy works at a physiological level. We are right, and all the evidence now proves that we are right. Anyone who still believes Knox and/or Sollecito had anything to do with the murder either a) is too scientifically illiterate to be able to understand the forensic science in this case, or b) has some sort of irrational vendetta against the pair. Or both.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 07:09 AM   #2776
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nowhere does the Supreme Court say that.
I've posted and reposted that section of the report. I'm too lazy to do it for an umpteenth time.

But you made 10 posts in 23 minutes, including one responding to a criticism of Donald Trump, which you read as Trump hero worship. It's hard to keep up with that sort of posting-lunacy.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd October 2022 at 07:11 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 07:13 AM   #2777
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Did Amanda ever claim she even used Raff's kitchen knife? Her run around Italy living out an eat pray love vacation doesn't strike me as her being the help out chopping the onions type. And she only had a couple days to ever use it. Why wasn't Raff's DNA on the handle?
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 07:53 AM   #2778
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, I know that. My question was if a record was kept of all donations to Knox's defense fund. If not, then all we have, and Knox had, is his word he did. And Trump's word isn't worth anything. The reason I mentioned his 'charity' is to show that his claiming that he made a donation isn't credible evidence of it.
Your question, then, is whether a US person receiving gifts needs to keep a record of all gifts received and their monetary value.

A gift below a limit set by law for a tax year (for 2022, this amount is $16,000; there is also a lifetime exclusion of about $12 million*) is not taxable to the recipient nor to the donor. A gift above the limit is taxable to the donor, not the recipient.

So my questions to you are:

1. Do you believe that Amanda Knox did not know whether or not Trump donated funds to her or her family, but said that he had made a donation merely because he had claimed to have made such a donation?

2. Do you believe that an American middle-class family and their legal or financial advisors, who due to circumstances become enmeshed in an expensive legal struggle in a foreign country when their daughter was falsely accused and tried for a grave crime, and who had large expenses related to those events, failed to keep a record of the related expenses and gift income?

3. Are you aware of the following statement in the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy:

Quote:
193. La requérante demande également 30 000 EUR pour les frais et dépens qu’elle dit avoir engagés devant la Cour ainsi que 2 186 643 EUR correspondant aux frais et dépens exposés par ses parents pour la procédure interne.
Google translation:

Quote:
193. The applicant also claimed EUR 30,000 for the costs and expenses which she said she had incurred before the Court and EUR 2,186,643 corresponding to the costs and expenses incurred by her parents in the domestic {Italian} proceedings.


* Source: https://pacifictax.com/blog/gift-tax...-can-you-give/
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 08:45 AM   #2779
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by Bill Willaims
If it is judicial facts we're after, then it is a judicial fact that all that the so called 'blood evidence' proved.....

..... was that AK and RS were in the cottage after the murder and in another part of the house.....

Which no one denies. In my mind that judicial fact is tantalizingly close to the official, judicial position being....

They didn't do it, nor could they have. But that's just me.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nowhere does the Supreme Court say that.
Okay, because I'm stupid. Here comes the repost of what the Supreme court wrote in 2015. Please note that when reading this Vixen will pivot, she'll pivot from "they never said that," to "they didn't mean it when they said it."
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno in 2015
9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical
inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus
[foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.

The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to
present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a
pronouncement of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Article 533 of
the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the text renewed by Article 5 of the law n.
46/2006.
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno in 2015
Nevertheless, even if (which it wasn't, but let's pretend for a minute it was)
attribution is certain (that she'd come in contact with the
victim's blood which she tried to wash off)
, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.
Okay, in three, two, one......

Vixen will pivot!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd October 2022 at 09:01 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 09:07 AM   #2780
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I don't actually know why we're bothering to engage with any of this claptrap. It's as pointless as trying to engage with people who continue to convince themselves that 9/11 was a US Government plot, or people who continue to convince themselves that homeopathy works at a physiological level. We are right, and all the evidence now proves that we are right. Anyone who still believes Knox and/or Sollecito had anything to do with the murder either a) is too scientifically illiterate to be able to understand the forensic science in this case, or b) has some sort of irrational vendetta against the pair. Or both.
I don't know. We all learn things, even at this late date.

For instance, for as much as I've read, I never knew that when Ficarra was wanting to see Knox's cellphone, that Ficarra made oblique mention of Rudy Guede - BEFORE Knox broke under interrogation, and told them "what we already knew", regarding Lumumba.

I'd never known that Rudy Guede was on the cops' radar. Wow, they had the killer in their grasp, in their sights, and never once said, 'let's go round him up and see what he has to say.' Of course, by then he'd fled to Germany.

But I'd not known that. That Guede was a known quantity to Perugian authorities. That one is a 'wow, just wow.'
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 09:32 AM   #2781
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I don't know. We all learn things, even at this late date.

For instance, for as much as I've read, I never knew that when Ficarra was wanting to see Knox's cellphone, that Ficarra made oblique mention of Rudy Guede - BEFORE Knox broke under interrogation, and told them "what we already knew", regarding Lumumba.

I'd never known that Rudy Guede was on the cops' radar. Wow, they had the killer in their grasp, in their sights, and never once said, 'let's go round him up and see what he has to say.' Of course, by then he'd fled to Germany.

But I'd not known that. That Guede was a known quantity to Perugian authorities. That one is a 'wow, just wow.'
So does that mean it really is ok to suggest that the police and prosecutor framed Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba, for a shorter period)? It wasn't just that the authorities were incompetent and suffered tunnel vision (and neglected to seek medical help for that real medical but imagined police misconduct problem)?

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd October 2022 at 09:36 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 09:44 AM   #2782
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If it relates to Boninsegna it cannot relate to the case under which Knox was convicted. As Knox never appealed the Boninsegna case that ruled in her favour, I am not sure why Boninsegna is the case being appealed at the ECHR.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I don't actually know why we're bothering to engage with any of this claptrap. It's as pointless as trying to engage with people who continue to convince themselves that 9/11 was a US Government plot, or people who continue to convince themselves that homeopathy works at a physiological level. We are right, and all the evidence now proves that we are right. Anyone who still believes Knox and/or Sollecito had anything to do with the murder either a) is too scientifically illiterate to be able to understand the forensic science in this case, or b) has some sort of irrational vendetta against the pair. Or both.
An example of laughably bizarre drivel or claptrap.

Clue why for anyone who needs to catch up: The Boninsegna trial of Knox on the criminal charge of continued aggravated calunnia against the police and prosecutor was the closest any authority in Italy came to investigating the truth of what happened during the interrogation of Knox on 5/6 November 2007.

The ECHR used the records of that trial, as well as other official Italian judicial documents, in formulating its judgment that Italy had violated Knox's rights under the Convention, under THREE articles or combinations of articles, in wrongfully convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 10:42 AM   #2783
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Erm, that has ZERO to do with the topic or what I said above. Once again, you attempt to evade responding with a red herring. Your tactic became so predictable and obvious long ago. It fools no one.




Yeah, yeah, yeah....the same old song and dance and lies we've heard so many times before. Trouble is, Vix, Knox wasn't convicted of "obstruction" or anything close to it. She was convicted of calunnia and the closest thing to that in US law is defamation. On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. On the state level, Knox's state of Washington also has no criminal defamation law; defamation is considered a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I've presented citations for that many times. You just choose to ignore it. One the other hand, you've not once presented a shred of evidence that Knox's calunnia conviction is "the equivalent of obstruction of justice".

Stop trying to play with the adults and go back to the TJMK sandbox.
This topic has been discussed many times here.

Calunnia is the crime in Italy of knowingly making a false statement to the police, prosecutor, or judge that someone known by the statement-maker to be innocent has committed a crime.

Its US equivalent is not merely defamation, even as a criminal charge (some states have, at least historically, made defamation a misdemeanor).

The US equivalent would be knowingly making material false statements to the police or federal legal authorities. Under US federal law, that is not obstruction, because under that law, obstruction is a crime that includes elements of, for example, knowingly commits an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" or corruptly destroys or hides evidence etc. Obstruction is covered by federal laws 18 USC Sections 1503 1505. Knowingly making material false statements to federal authorities is a federal crime under 18 USC 1001. Note the critical importance that false statements can be a crime under federal law only if they are made "knowingly and willfully".

Broadly, calunnia (and autocalunnia, falsely confessing to a crime in Italy) are considered one of the crimes under Book 2, Title 3: Dei delitti contro l'Amministrazione della giustizia [Crimes against the Administration of Justice; Google translation], Codice Penale Articles 361 - 391ter. Calunnia is CP Article 368 and autocalunnia is CP Article 369.

In Italy, just as in the US, a false statement made to the authorities cannot be considered to be a crime of calunnia if it is not made knowingly and willfully.

Sources:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...ella-giustizia

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd October 2022 at 12:08 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 10:59 AM   #2784
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So does that mean it really is ok to suggest that the police and prosecutor framed Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba, for a shorter period)? It wasn't just that the authorities were incompetent and suffered tunnel vision (and neglected to seek medical help for that real medical but imagined police misconduct problem)?
Well for example, did Knox admit to using Raff's kitchen knife? If she didn't, then we have our answer. It's a random knife that lives in a drawer of a random guy she just met, collecting dust. Her DNA shouldn't be on the handle.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 11:22 AM   #2785
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So does that mean it really is ok to suggest that the police and prosecutor framed Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba, for a shorter period)? It wasn't just that the authorities were incompetent and suffered tunnel vision (and neglected to seek medical help for that real medical but imagined police misconduct problem)?
I still have not tasted the kool-ade which suspects that the Perugian cops/prosecutor were desperate to protect Guede, until Guede's unmistakable forensic presence was found in the murder room. That's too Machiavellian for me.

I'm taken with what the Frank Sfarzo character in Winterbottom's film "The Face of an Angel" said, in response to such speculation. The faux-Sfarzo had said, "Frankly, the cops aren't that smart." (On Injustice in Perugia website, Sfarzo confirmed that he'd said that.)

That seems about right. Indeed, it hadn't even been the cops who'd found the shop owner, the one who first claimed that neither AK nor RS had been in his store, then a year later it was a journalist who'd pulled it out of him. Same with the ear-witness lady who only a year later said she'd heard a scream, a memory pulled from her by the same journalist - point being that the cops first heard about those things on TV.

Perugian law enforcement may have had a reason to protect Guede, as some sort of source - a wobbly conduit into Perugia's notorious underworld.

I mean, did Mignini dream up the "only a woman covers the body" nonsense, because he was trying to divert from Guede? Did Comodi threaten to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with the Satanic rite theory - was all that because both were trying to protect Rudy?

Did they pull that knife from Sollecito's kitchen drawer with, 'this will get Guede off the hook' in their minds? Did the cops release the tapped phone call Guede made from Germany, the one where Guede clears Knox of complicity, because they were trying to protect Guede?

It all points to a rush to judgement, not to conspiracy. Frankly, neither the cops nor Mignini were that smart. Indeed, it was Napoleoni's first case as lead investigator.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd October 2022 at 11:24 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 12:05 PM   #2786
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Well for example, did Knox admit to using Raff's kitchen knife? If she didn't, then we have our answer. It's a random knife that lives in a drawer of a random guy she just met, collecting dust. Her DNA shouldn't be on the handle.
IIRC, she did acknowledge preparing food at Sollecito's apartment and handling the cutlery.

But remember, there are no time stamps on DNA!
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 12:07 PM   #2787
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
IIRC, she did acknowledge preparing food at Sollecito's apartment and handling the cutlery.

But remember, there are no time stamps on DNA!
If she actually helped prepare dinner that night, or helped clean the dishes, then that makes sense. I've forgotten a lot of the little details.

I just find Stef's work super sus. The bra clasp. Not finding any Filomena dna in her own room, but finding Amanda's. Etc.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 12:29 PM   #2788
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I still have not tasted the kool-ade which suspects that the Perugian cops/prosecutor were desperate to protect Guede, until Guede's unmistakable forensic presence was found in the murder room. That's too Machiavellian for me.

I'm taken with what the Frank Sfarzo character in Winterbottom's film "The Face of an Angel" said, in response to such speculation. The faux-Sfarzo had said, "Frankly, the cops aren't that smart." (On Injustice in Perugia website, Sfarzo confirmed that he'd said that.)

That seems about right. Indeed, it hadn't even been the cops who'd found the shop owner, the one who first claimed that neither AK nor RS had been in his store, then a year later it was a journalist who'd pulled it out of him. Same with the ear-witness lady who only a year later said she'd heard a scream, a memory pulled from her by the same journalist - point being that the cops first heard about those things on TV.

Perugian law enforcement may have had a reason to protect Guede, as some sort of source - a wobbly conduit into Perugia's notorious underworld.

I mean, did Mignini dream up the "only a woman covers the body" nonsense, because he was trying to divert from Guede? Did Comodi threaten to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with the Satanic rite theory - was all that because both were trying to protect Rudy?

Did they pull that knife from Sollecito's kitchen drawer with, 'this will get Guede off the hook' in their minds? Did the cops release the tapped phone call Guede made from Germany, the one where Guede clears Knox of complicity, because they were trying to protect Guede?

It all points to a rush to judgement, not to conspiracy. Frankly, neither the cops nor Mignini were that smart. Indeed, it was Napoleoni's first case as lead investigator.
There's nothing that "proves" in any way that the police and/or prosecutor knew on 5/6 November 2007 that Guede was the murderer/rapist.

But - what if they suspected that he could be a suspect, but then realized, based on Mignini's and Giobbi's (allegedly*) previous "insights" (for example, that the climb to the window was impossible, that covering of the body indicated a female culprit, etc.) that Knox was a better suspect, because more convenient (at hand, naive, and easy to convict with a bit of coercion)?**

* Is there documentation that shows that those "insights" were developed before Knox and Sollecito were interrogated on 5/6 November?

** Here's what I mean:

Suppose we compare police and prosecution work to a game. The police and prosecutor are confronted with a choice to win the game - that is, to get a supposedly credible arrest and conviction (remember, the judges tend to favor the prosecution, because they are on the same team, the judicial branch of government that constitutes the magistrates of Italy). Should the police and prosecutor not select the easiest course to win the game? Would they not believe that to be a professional obligation? If the prosecution succeeds, won't Mignini be publicized as a genius of a prosecutor, a true Sherlock Holmes? And the police will be awarded medals for quickly solving the case, saving Italy from embarrassment.

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd October 2022 at 12:53 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 01:50 PM   #2789
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
If she actually helped prepare dinner that night, or helped clean the dishes, then that makes sense. I've forgotten a lot of the little details.

I just find Stef's work super sus. The bra clasp. Not finding any Filomena dna in her own room, but finding Amanda's. Etc.
This is an intentional understatement, intended as a clever comment, right?

Etc. includes testifying that she was never informed of contamination in her lab. She's the one responsible for checking for it and taking quality control - quality assurance measures to prevent and detect contamination in her lab and in her collection of specimens. Apparently she never talked to herself about the problems revealed by her DNA controls.

She withheld almost all the DNA control data, data that is critical to show whether or not contamination was present. In fact, among the very few control specimens reported, there were a few showing contamination.

In my opinion, that alone invalidates all of the alleged DNA profiles obtained from LCN DNA in her lab for the Knox - Sollecito case. That would include the alleged profile of Kercher's DNA found on the knife blade.

The DNA profile data of the bra clasp shows the DNA of several males, contrary to Stefanoni's testimony, and thus cannot be interpreted to show that Sollecito touched the clasp. (Unless, of course, one wishes to be dishonest.)

See:

Conti-Vecchiotti Report

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...cation-of-dna/

Lab Data Suppression

http://amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

Contamination in the Lab & Coverup

http://amandaknoxcase.com/contaminat...bwork-coverup/

Bra Lab Tests Reveal Contamination, Suppressed Data & Tampering

http://amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Here's an excerpt from the last citation above about contamination for the bra clasp DNA profiling:

[quote]The quantification records for this batch demonstrate contamination. The lab used a dilution standard of known concentration—23 pg/µL—as the positive control for the quantification run (see RT-qPCR Run No. 570 at wells H11-H12). This positive control, however, did not quantify at 23 pg/µL as should be expected, but rather, at 108 pg/µL (average of quantification values shown in RT-qPCR Run No. 570 at wells H11-H12). In other words, the positive control contained almost five times as much DNA as it should have.

This demonstrates that a substantial amount of DNA was introduced into this control via a contamination event.[/QUOTE]

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd October 2022 at 01:57 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 03:24 PM   #2790
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 858
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So zero remorse for getting Lumumba falsely imprisoned for 'rape and murder' and zero remorse for being at the crime scene and not bothering to fetch any help whatsoever for a dying woman.


Got it. Sociopaths.
Vixen calls people morons whilst not being able to grasp simple concepts such as you don't need to show remorse for a crime you didn't commit. If you can't grasp simple concepts you should not be taking part in internet forums. Amanda didn't name Lumumba but was bullied and manipulated into naming Lumumba by the police. Below is a previous post showing the hypocrisy of Vixen in attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba. Vixen has never shown any remorse for the people she has falsely accused of crimes. Guede never showed any remorse for falsely accusing Amanda of being present when he killed Meredith and the various witnesses have never shown any remorse for providing false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Below is a list of the numerous lies told by Vixen where Vixen uses false information to imply Amanda killed Meredith. Vixen has never shown any remorse over this. Vixen repeatedly and obsessively attacks Amanda for lying when Amanda hasn't lied. Vixen has never shown any remorse for this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726


"A reminder from previous posts of the disgusting hypocrisy Vixen shows when attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba. Vixen complains the supreme court acted illegally in annulling the conviction. Numerous laws were broken during the interrogations but for some reason Vixen has no issue with Italian laws being broken when it works against Amanda and Raffaele. PGP posters are so staggeringly stupid they don't see it as hypocritical to attack someone for falsely accusing someone of a crime and then falsely accusing people of crimes yourself.

“Amanda being convicted of Calunnia is a major injustice in this case. Amanda’s rights were violated during the interrogation by being denied access to lawyers. The interrogation was not taped and there is no record of what happened in the interrogation. The two statements below are clearly prepared by the police and short on details. If Amanda has named Lumumba, why did the police prepare statements for the Amanda to sign?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/145Statement.pdf
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/545Statement.pdf

As can be seen from Amanda’s statement below, Amanda withdrew the accusation against Lumumba. Vixen for some reason never mentions this.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content...moriale-II.pdf

The police didn’t carry out a proper investigation. Amanda was not asked what time the murder happened, what was discussed before the murder, what was Lumumba wearing, did Lumumba use a weapon, what happened after the murder. As can be seen from the link below, the police didn’t check witnesses to see if Lumumba was at the bar and only carried out minimal forensic investigations. Lumumba initially said in a statement that the police tried to beat a confession out of him. Lumumba was still held when tests came which excluded him as the rapist. Lumumba’s bar was kept closed after he was released. If Vixen and other PGP care so much about Lumumba, why are the strangely silent about the brutal treatment Lumumba received from the police?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

Vixen conveniently forgets that false accusations have been made against Amanda and Raffaele. The witnesses Kokomani, Gioffredi, Curalto and Quintavelle provided false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Guede falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele of being at the cottage when he murdered Meredith. Vixen made the false allegation Hellman received a massive bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. Vixen and other PGP have attacked Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba and felt a prison sentence was justified but Vixen felt it was perfectly acceptable for people to make false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele and for Vixen to falsely accuse Hellman of committing a crime which is typical of the disgusting and repulsive Vixen shows in her posts. Of all the vile hypocrisy Vixen has shown in her post I feel this ranks as the worst. Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for telling lies and then spreads malicious lies about Hellman being bribed.”


“In addition to the false allegation Hellman received massive bribe, there are other examples where Vixen has made false allegations people have committed crimes. In the posts below Vixen makes a false allegation Vecchiotti was convicted of gross negligence and Vinci used photoshop which would be criminal misconduct. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk why is necessary to resort to lies? Vixen has consistently refused to answer this question. Vixen has made three false allegations people have committed crimes and has the cheek to attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime. The evidence suggests Amanda was pressurised into naming Lumumba and Amanda withdrew the allegation. Vixen has made deliberate false allegations without being put under pressure. Vixen says Amanda deserves time in prison and should pay Lumumba but Vixen feels it is perfectly acceptable for her to falsely accuse people of crimes without being punished or be liable to pay money. Vixen has not shown any remorse over these false allegations and has refused to withdraw them. Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying and spreads malicious lies about people. Words can’t describe how utterly repulsive this hypocrisy is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

Post dated 20.03.2016
Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp and there is no evidence Vinci used Photoshop.

Another way Vixen shows disgusting hypocrisy is that Vixen has no problem if people make false accusations if they work against Amanda and Raffaele. In addition to witnesses giving false testimony and Rudy lying about Amanda and Raffaele being at the cottage when he killed Meredith, there are other instances where false accusations were made against Amanda and Raffaele :-

• As can be seen from the links below the prosecution fed false information about the purchase of bleach, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a blood bathroom, the Harry Potter book. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court saying she had called her mother at 12.00 pm when in fact phone records showed she phoned her mother at 12.47 pm. In yet another example of disgusting hypocrisy, Vixen attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying in court but had no problem with the prosecution lying to Amanda in court. The postal police lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to give the false impression Raffaele called the police after they arrived. Vixen had no issue with police/prosecution making false allegations against Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies but defends corrupt/police prosecutors who told numerous lies. It is a sign of the industrial scale stupidity of PGP is that they claim the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case when they had to resort to telling numerous lies.

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html


• As can be seen from the link below, the media false allegations against Amanda. Vixen had no issue with the media making false allegations. Vixen bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies but stayed silent about the media telling numerous lies about Amanda.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/”
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 03:49 PM   #2791
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Your question, then, is whether a US person receiving gifts needs to keep a record of all gifts received and their monetary value.

A gift below a limit set by law for a tax year (for 2022, this amount is $16,000; there is also a lifetime exclusion of about $12 million*) is not taxable to the recipient nor to the donor. A gift above the limit is taxable to the donor, not the recipient.

So my questions to you are:

1. Do you believe that Amanda Knox did not know whether or not Trump donated funds to her or her family, but said that he had made a donation merely because he had claimed to have made such a donation?

2. Do you believe that an American middle-class family and their legal or financial advisors, who due to circumstances become enmeshed in an expensive legal struggle in a foreign country when their daughter was falsely accused and tried for a grave crime, and who had large expenses related to those events, failed to keep a record of the related expenses and gift income?

3. Are you aware of the following statement in the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy:



Google translation:





* Source: https://pacifictax.com/blog/gift-tax...-can-you-give/
Ok...I never said he didn't. I said I have doubt because he's a pathological liar with a history of making donation claims he never made. But does it really matter? The fact is making a donation to something does not mean you owe them anything nor, as Vixen so weirdly seems to think, mean Trump has any influence whatsoever on the case.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 04:59 PM   #2792
junkshop
Graduate Poster
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Idly doodling in the margins.
Posts: 1,351
Having read this thread (due to an unforeseen excess of free time, rather than any particular interest in the subject), the development of certain other threads now makes more sense is less surprising.
__________________
Not a Cockney, but possibly Australian...I am Dick Van Dyke.

Last edited by junkshop; 3rd October 2022 at 05:04 PM. Reason: Accuracy of language.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 05:21 PM   #2793
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
OH, do stop embarrassing yourself with this drivel, Vix. Accusing people of racism seems to be your new 'go-to' tactic now. That's at least 3 people you've accused of that.
Citation please where I did anything of the sort.
As requested:

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Well, there's a give away of what drives you into believing only Guede is guilty. There we have it folks! We have someone claiming to be a 'skeptic' from the USA who thinks Black prisoners 'play the race card'. Disgusting comment.

May I suggest you clean up your own backyard in the USA? You can kill your ignorance by perhaps reading
  • 'Solitary by Albert Woodfox;
  • 'Soledad Brother' by George Jackson and
  • Michelle Alexander's 'The New Jim Crow'.
Then come back and claim disadvantage to Black defendants doesn't exist. No wonder you are completely deaf to the evidence if that is your mindset. Wow. So open about it, too. Wow.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, all you know about Guede's life experience is what has been written about him by others, and one or two letters and prison diary written by Guede. I am guessing you believe Nina Burleigh's depiction of Guede as an itinerant bum, when in fact his upbringing, after a shaky start, was little different from any other middle-class Italian. Clearly, American Burleigh was revealing her own racist attitudes in assuming he was a lesser person than her heroes, Sollecito and Knox.

On the one hand, Guede's 'memoirs' might indeed be a crock of self-serving ****, like Knox' and Sollecito's (I didn't see anyone criticise their accounts...?) on the other hand, you can't assume his life experiences are invalid if he 'plays the race card', as Stacyhs calls it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I mean it's obvious Stacy isn't a racist, as you are hamfistedly attempting to paint her to be. A trick you once tried with me as I recall. It was about as ludicrous and transparent then too.
1. Me
2. Nina Burleigh
3. MarkCorrigan

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are the one who keeps using the phrase 'playing the race card' which is a phrase popular with racists, so why use a racist term if you don't want anyone to challenge it?
It's not a racist term as you claim, but a tactic, used by people of all colors, racist and anti-racists. Or are you now not only a legal and forensic expert, but now a language expert?

Quote:
in British English
if someone plays the race card they bring up the issue of race in a discussion, perhaps for sympathy or to seek popularity by appealing to racist sentiment
She was accused of playing the race card during a TV interview.
Quote:
play the race card
​(disapproving, offensive) if you accuse somebody of playing the race card, you mean that you think they are using complaints about racism to gain sympathy or an advantage
Quote:
Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to the exploitation by someone of either racist or anti-racist attitudes in the audience in order to gain an advantage
Which is what Guede did with his "Black man found, Black man guilty" invention...playing to anti-racist sentiment by setting up the idea that he'll be blamed for killing MK because he's black which is why he ran instead of getting help for her. Playing the race card is used both in the prosecution and defense in court trials and also by black people themselves.
You might take a look at how OJ Simpson's "Dream Team" used it in his defense.

And this black woman writes about OJ's defense team playing the race card in his defense:
Quote:
By Ta-Nehisi Coates
OCTOBER 2016 ISSUE

My reaction to O. J. Simpson’s arrest for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman was atypical. It was 1994. I was a young black man attending a historically black university in the majority-black city of Washington, D.C., with zero sympathy for Simpson, zero understanding of the sympathy he elicited from my people, and zero appreciation for the defense team’s claim that Simpson had been targeted because he was black.
Quote:
O.J. Simpson’s great escape still sticks in the craw of much of the country. Simpson’s lawyers are not praised as adept defense attorneys, but disparaged as unscrupulous flouters of the rules who played the “race card” in a case that should have been about science—no matter how poorly that science was deployed. Resentment continues to fester that Simpson was afforded the best defense money could buy, in the form of Cochran. “It offended me,” Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor, says to Edelman, “because he was using a very serious, for-real issue—racial injustice—in defense of a man who wanted nothing to do with the black community.”

It offended me, too. Simpson should have been the last person in the world to reap a reward from the struggle waged against the LAPD.
So stop with the crap "racist" accusations against me, Vix. You're wrong...as you so often are.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:09 PM   #2794
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
Having read this thread (due to an unforeseen excess of free time, rather than any particular interest in the subject), the development of certain other threads now makes more sense is less surprising.
But did you start at the beginning.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:12 PM   #2795
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So zero remorse for getting Lumumba falsely imprisoned for 'rape and murder'
Stop lying:

Quote:
“I want to tell the truth. I’m sorry about Patrick. I’m sorry about the whole situation. I’m innocent.” Her lawyer Luciano Ghirga said: “She was very emotional for the hearing and addressed the court in English. “She spoke for less than a minute and declared her innocence and apologised for Patrick and the situation.”
Nov. 30, 2007, Daily Mail

She also wrote a letter of apology to Lumumba but her lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told her it "wasn't the right time". Of course, you'll just claim she's lying about that.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
and zero remorse for being at the crime scene and not bothering to fetch any help whatsoever for a dying woman.
Again, she has no need to apologize for what she didn't do.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Got it. Sociopaths.
Got it. You're just throwing out more of your crap as if it is anything more than just that: crap.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 3rd October 2022 at 06:41 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:26 PM   #2796
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is well known. It is even in Sollecito's book. Please familiarise yourself with the case.
Oh, is it? Then quote it. I've got his book and nowhere does he say that.
Stop lying. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:27 PM   #2797
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ah, so that's where you went?
I'm not the one making false legal claims, Vix. That would be you.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:29 PM   #2798
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You have been told time and time again that Calunnia Criminal Law has nothing to do with Defamation Civil Law.
And you've been asked time and again to present any evidence that Amanda's conviction for calunnia is equivalent to "obstruction of justice". You never have. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:30 PM   #2799
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wow. Trump the hero after all.
What is wrong with you?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2022, 06:34 PM   #2800
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read the motivations report if you want to find out On what evidence at the time of Guede's trial and then SC confirmation did they base that decision? It is all in the Public Records.
I have. This is what you do: you make a claim, you can't support it, and then you tell the challenger to go find the evidence supporting YOUR claim. May I remind you that it was YOU who once said:

Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.